House Ethics Committee releases scathing report on George Santos | The Hill
Category: News & Politics
Via: evilone • 11 months ago • 112 commentsBy: Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks, and Mike Lillis (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis - 11/16/23 10:05 AM ET
by Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis - 11/16/23 10:05 AM ET
The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.
The panel referred its findings of "potential violations of federal criminal law" to the Department of Justice, and its report will raise questions about whether the House will expel Santos, who has been a subject of controversy since before he formally became a member of Congress — and has publicly admitted to fabricating aspects of his backstory and resume.
"[T]he evidence uncovered by the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) revealed that Representative George Santos cannot be trusted," the report reads. "At nearly every opportunity, he placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles."
The report found that Santos "blatantly stole from his campaign" and "deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit."
Transgressions detailed by the committee include Santos potentially inappropriately using thousands of dollars of funds from his campaign on a trip to Atlantic City, a trip to Las Vegas, and on botox and other cosmetic procedures. The committee said it was unable to verify whether those expenditures had a campaign purpose, but they appeared not to.
It also detailed transactions made by Santos after he personally received tens of thousands of dollars from an outside strategy firm created to support his campaign, including a $4,127.80 purchase at luxury brand Hermes; payments for his own personal credit cards and debt; and small purchases from Only Fans, the subscription platform mostly used for adult content.
Following release of the report, Santos said he would no longer seek reelection but that he will continue to serve "up until I am allowed" — while tearing into the committee.
"It is a disgusting politicized smear that shows the depths of how low our federal government has sunk. Everyone who participated in this grave miscarriage of Justice should all be ashamed of themselves," Santos said in a post on X.
The announcement marked a reversal from his comments earlier this month, when the Congressman told CNN in an interview that he would run for his seat in 2024 even if the House voted to expel him.
While the committee did not make a formal recommendation on expelling Santos, as Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) previously told reporters would be the case, the top lawmakers on the panel said "Santos' conduct warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit to the House."
The final product is sure to exacerbate the controversy surrounding Santos, who is facing 23 federal criminal counts and has already endured two expulsion efforts — with a third likely on the horizon.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said in a statement following the report's release that he plans to submit a privileged resolution to expel Santos when the House returns Nov. 28 after the Thanksgiving holiday, which will force another vote on the matter.
The release of the report has already swayed at least one lawmaker who was opposed to expulsion earlier this month: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said he will now support booting Santos from office.
"The report's findings are extremely damning and I would vote to expel," Raskin told The Hill in a text message.
The Ethics report could also add to the legal peril Santos is facing. Federal prosecutors have charged the New York Republican with 23 criminal counts on allegations that he misled donors, fraudulently received unemployment benefits, lied on House financial disclosures, inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors' credit cards without authorization.
He has pleaded not guilty to all counts, and his trial is set for September 2024.
In a statement accompanying the report, the chairman and ranking member of the panel said there is "substantial evidence" to show that Santos "knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission; used campaign funds for personal purposes; engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies LLC; and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House."
The panel also found that Santos "reported fictitious loans to political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign — and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported 'repayments' of those fictitious loans."
"He used his connections to high value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings," adding that he "sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience."
The scathing report also tore into Santos for his "obfuscation and delay," saying that his "lack of candor during the investigation itself" was "particularly troubling."
Despite Santos repeatedly saying in public that he would like to prove his innocence and would fully cooperate with the committee, the panel said he declined to submit a signed statement responding to the allegations in the report, declined to voluntarily provide documents and information to the investigators, and declined to provide a statement under oath.
Nonetheless, the committee said it "compiled a voluminous record consisting of over 170,000 pages of documents and testimony from dozens of witnesses, including financial statements, contemporaneous communications, and other materials."
Though the committee had considered issuing a subpoena to Santos, it decided not to in order to avoid further delaying the investigation, believing that Santos would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that his testimony would have "low evidentiary value given his admitted practice of embellishment."
The Hill reached out to Santos for comment.
Several New York Republicans have led the months-long effort to expel Santos, which has so far proven unsuccessful amid the ongoing Ethics and Justice Department investigations. Without a formal conviction, even some Democrats have defended Santos's right to remain in Congress, as other indicted lawmakers have done in years past.
Former Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), for instance, was indicted for insider trading in 2018 but remained in Congress for more than a year afterwards, winning reelection over that span. He resigned from Congress the same day he pleaded guilty to the charges, making expulsion unnecessary.
More recently, in 2020, former Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) also stepped down from Congress voluntarily, a month after pleading guilty to campaign finance fraud. Both he and Collins were sentenced to prison terms, though both were pardoned by former President Trump.
After the first two efforts to expel Santos failed, Santos's top critics are hoping the release of the Ethics report will help convince enough holdouts that he should be removed from office.
"Many of my colleagues want to hang their hat on a report like that before they vote yes," Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said Wednesday as the House was leaving Washington for the long holiday recess.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who voted to expel Santos earlier this month, suggested this week that a formal sanctions recommendation from Ethics isn't necessary to remove him, as long as the committee's report "clearly justifies expulsion."
Updated at 11:56 a.m. ET
Tags George Santos Michael Guest
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stay on topic. The topic is George Santos and this ethics report. Off topic posts risk being removed.
Tags
Who is online
394 visitors
Looks like Rep Santos might be in a world of hurt. It would be interesting to see the Republican House actually expel one of their own, but no telling what they will do.
I think they will when he is convicted.
That may take longer than his term.
Well, if he's gone, he's gone, probably going to do a short stint in prison.
“…but no telling what they will do.”
They will pull a Pontius Pilate…washing their hands as he as decided not to continue and thus absolving themselves from making the condemnation the law requires.
I think he'll like federal prison. with the future influx of xtian conservatives being institutionalized, he'll be popular...
Beginning to wonder if there any republicans who aren't bent.
There are, just like there are some Democrats who aren't bent.
What took them so long? Was this not obvious immediately after he was elected?
Yeah, but who cares. Can't do much to get rid of him until he's had his day in court.
His constituents care! Those who care about the integrity of our politicians care. We have too many lying, unethical, self-centered clowns in Congress as it is.
Every responsible individual should care that a con-man was able to lie and cheat his way into Congress.
Gosh, you mean wait for convictions???????
Do you think Santos should be expelled from the House?
I think the desired response is to go off on Santos and demand that Congress do something!
I personally prefer to let the courts handle it. Congress can't imprison anyone, and if he did what he is accused of, he should do time!
Expelling him from the House is independent of finding him legally guilty of a crime.
Are you against having a vote to expel him (clearly within the power of the House to expel him)? If so, why?
I wonder why you find it necessary to state the damn obvious so often.
I wonder how long it will take for the DoJ to file new charges?
To make my point crystal clear to mitigate deflection tactics.
Regardless, you deflect rather than answer a simple question.
Then they'll have a chance to show it.
If you find someone who believes our politicians have integrity, sell them a bridge.
I believe the current popular term is "Rich Men North of Richmond".
You act like that doesn't happen with great frequency.
[deleted]
Yes they will.
In the meantime, the House has the chance to hold accountable those like Santos who are at the extreme end of conning the electorate to become a member of Congress. The House should have ethics and should act on violations — especially the extreme violations. They should have a precedent of taking action.
Do you disagree?
You ignored the sentence I intentionally included in anticipation of smart-ass comments like the above:
Depends. In Santos' case, it would appear that there is general agreement that his behavior was not only unethical but criminal, so I would not object to his removal.
That said, if we're going to expel Congressmen/women for "conning the electorate", I'm not sure how many we'll have left.
Generally speaking, I would worry about the practice of expelling elected officials becoming weaponized to target political rivals. We're perilously close to that with presidential impeachment if we haven't crossed that bridge already. Give lying, unethical, self-centered clowns a weapon and they'll use it.
Further, it seems odd to me that there is no prohibition against convicted felons serving in Congress or as POTUS. That's a Constitutional change I could get behind quite easily.
You stated something self evident and the comment did not seem to require a reply. My comment clearly affirms the statement, so I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist about it.
There are, of course, many degrees in this range. Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected. Santos, however, is at the high end of conning and this should be dealt with.
Not a great reason, IMO, to avoid dealing with extreme cases like Santos.
Really? Why do you think that?
Other than the fact that it works?
Yes. Why is it necessary to lie to voters in order to get elected?
Because the competition does so, coupled with the fact that the voters (for the most part) buy it.
In short, if one is elected on what one claims they will do and have done (regardless of the truth) then those who are truthful will be at a disadvantage.
In terms of presidential politics, compare and contrast Trump's campaign style with that of Romney.
Every one?
Which is why so many people don't waste their time worrying about voting. What's the point in trying to decipher the best or worst liar?
It is also why our government is filled with liars - psychopaths, sociopaths and other assorted less than desirable people with mental health disorders in positions of power over us.
I don't understand how this system will continue to be viable or palatable.
BTW, our politicians may rate high on the narcissistic scale, but without a high propensity to toward not really caring about what others think of them (such as psychopathy) a person with just NPD would probably have a difficult time surviving the trauma of having half the country hating them and their agenda at all times. A psychopath would not care. This is why I stated that we must do a better job of vetting political candidates.
I will leave you with just one good example of the mental fragility of a person with NPD.
Yes. I do not think there is a politician out there who has not lied to the electorate.
This is technical conning to the tiniest degree.
In contrast we have major-league con-jobs such as Santos.
Who was responsible for vetting Santos?
The GOP has some responsibility, but the burden is with the electorate.
Why do you ask?
You seem to think that because all politicians lie, we should turn our backs on all of them. That there is no difference between a Trump and a Biden or Pelosi. That strikes me as apathetic and naive.
I don't understand why the political party is not responsible for vetting the people that they allow to run as a representative of their party firstly.
Then the news media should use their resources to vet the proposed candidates.
Lastly, few in the electorate have the time or resources to vet government officials - nor do they have the platform to be recognized as a vetting authority that should be respected.
JR,
In all sincerity, you are entitled to your opinion regardless of how flawed it is.
Mostly because I think there is too much money and power in politics and the political parties will do whatever they can to get their side elected. It does them no good to pre-vet candidates and possibly put out one that is not as popular as that allows a greater chance of the "other side" gaining a win.
Perhaps back in the days of Murrow, but today's news media is too caught up in the money and politics themselves to put forth an honest product.
And this I fear is what will end our democracy. The electorate has become too stupid to think for themselves and instead resemble an old Miller Lite commercial. Two sides shouting slogans at each other.
Your words.
I doubt there was a time in US history where the majority were capable of thinking on the best course of action on a national level. Today's electorate needs an education on what is happening globally and the players involved to properly vet any of our national candidates to represent us.
If the electorate is too stupid, then the issue is the government of the US has weakened and weaponized our public school system to engineer that level of stupidity.
Our politicians know how to "frame the issues" to game the electorate. It is done by both parties - hence the bipartisan support for lying.
Since 2003, the Democrats are just as adept at "framing the issues" as the GOP. The electorate loses trying to decipher how much is fact from how much is fiction.
The partisans choose a team and root for it like politics is a sporting event where they have waged their bottom dollar.
Are they incorrect?
Did Not Vote wins elections.
I noted that. But it is the electorate that decides.
I agree with your disappointment in the party organizations.
To enable an informed electorate.
Actually, Did Not Vote doesnt count in elections.
Well... as I said... I would not object to his removal.
It's just something we need to be careful about.
Based on faulty or incomplete information.
This system must be working in favor of the politicians currently in charge or there would be changes in the vetting process.
The electorate loses no matter what they do in this scenario.
I could agree more with you if we were not watching the GOP electorate overwhelmingly nominate Trump.
This failure of reason is not due to a lack of sound information.
Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected.
Every one?
The reason I mention that is that there are districts that are so solidly Democrat or Republican that an incumbent does have to worry about getting elected.
And often people lie them and just assume the politician will do what they like.
Well there have been Democrats who have mastered the art of communication from time to time-- even before 2003.. JFK comes to mind. And others.
Trump became the answer when every other politician campaigned on the same old lies and promptly lined their own pockets to the detriment of their states/districts.
The POS currently residing in the White House is the result of neither major political party fielding a candidate that should be POTUS.
NEITHER major political party is promoting candidates under the age of 50.
Voting for the same old, same old is not popular with a large portion of the population.
Fearmongering of the other has become so common that it holds little to no sway these days. The human nervous systems cannot maintain that level of stress without experiencing severe health problems.
Until career politicians come up with a new way to divide the voters, Trump is likely just the first of wealthy men buying their way into political power.
John Wayne could have been president based on his acting roles not on his ability to govern.
It is the responsibility of the electorate to choose their representatives in government.
Right now, the GOP has several individuals vying for the nomination. The nominee will be the result of votes from the GOP electorate (largely). That group has the power, right now, to nominate Haley (for example). They will (almost certainly) nominate Trump instead.
They have volumes of sound information (negative) regarding Trump. Substantially more than what it took to push aside candidates in the past (remember Gary Hart?). Yet they are choosing Trump.
This is their choice.
That should be the case. However, it was in the news that Democrats actually paid for ads promoting the GOP candidates that would be the easiest for them to defeat in the election. Dirty politics have consequences when the least desirable candidate gained the nomination through chicanery and then won the office.
So? It is the responsibility of the Democrats to quit worrying about who the GOP nominates and field a candidate that can defeat Trump. If they can't then they don't deserve to hold office.
So? What politician isn't a dirt bag?
Definitely. Trump probably gained a larger following today because there was no wars and they prospered financially during the 4 years that Trump was president.
It is the responsibility of the career politicians to show through what they have always supported that they will provide more peace and prosperity that Trump delivered.
The responsibility for picking the best nominee is that of the electorate. Do you not agree? Why the 'so?' stuff?
Compare Trump with Romney. I can easily see profound differences between these two men and make an informed choice on who would be a better GOP nominee. One can argue that every politician is a dirt bag but they are clearly NOT equivalent.
And the responsibility of the electorate is to make good, informed choices. Do you not agree?
“And the responsibility of the electorate to make good, informed choices.”
If only.
There is no argument to be made to dissuade the 30%-40% of sycophants and the fakers dozen hereabouts. He is unequivocally unqualified, unapologetic and untrustworthy. And everyone with a scintilla of integrity knows it.
Let us let it play out, warts and all, and then hopefully move on from this nonsense.
Indeed
It seems inevitable that Trump will be the nominee. But we should all act to dissuade this. Just letting it happen without resistance encourages more of the same.
I hope one day you also begin to notice what Joe Biden has done.
Notice that Biden has faithfully served this nation with honor and dignity for over forty years as US Senator, Vice President and as the current Commander in Chief and President of the United States?
Americans noticed and that is why they elected Biden, not Trump!
Exactly.
Instead of focusing on Trump, focus on their own problems.
I'll note the Biden Family has profited quite handsomely from the sale of Joe Biden.
Whether you recognize it or not, you are using the shaming tactic trying to force people to agree with your viewpoints.
Also, you are cherry picking my statements.
If it is possible, it would be beneficial to your political agenda to quit harping on the responsibility of the GOP supporters and make a positive case for supporting the Democrats who are likely to champion open borders, war in the Middle East and putting males in females' restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.
I am thoroughly disgusted with both major political parties and their ineptness and corruption. Maybe this mindset is becoming more common and we are seeing the rise of the people who really are independent politically because both choices are so unpalatable to them.
After watching thousands of hours of videos on how people are manipulated by people with their own personal agendas, I largely ignore people who use such tactics online. There is no real discussion to be gained with such people because either it is a product of their freewill or because they don't have freewill because of their genetics and social conditioning.
Unlike ours with Santos your accusations are unfounded...
No, mine are based on testimony, emails, a laptop, and bank records.
I am making my argument. I am offering logic in response to the question that you raised @2.1.21 ("Who was responsible for vetting Santos?") which started the discussion on responsibilities of the electorate, the party and the media.
My position is that the responsibility for picking the best nominee is that of the electorate. I have done nothing other than support that position with logic and examples.
You want me to not support my position on the responsibility of the electorate (a question that you raised) and instead make a case for why people should vote for Democrats?
And you think that this is my political agenda???
Just to help reset whatever you are thinking, I do not want Biden to be PotUS. Trump is far worse in many ways which I have enumerated in this forum, but neither should be PotUS.
Currently, my choice is Nikki Haley. That is who, of those running, I currently support.
Now, let's reset without the presumption. Tell me what you want to discuss. Show me what you think I have cherry-picked, ask whatever questions you wish.
“But we should all act to dissuade this.”
Of course…and in acknowledgment that 30%-40% of the gop apologists and the fakers dozen around here will never be dissuaded.
But they can be dismissed at the ballot box. Our vote is the ultimate determinator of the direction we choose to take. Perhaps a forlorn hope, but the only remedy we have to face the ignorance and fear that is paralyzing us…by casting an informed ballot. Peace.
Then produce them, from when Biden held any office...
A canceled check from legit loan of 2018 doesn't count!
you can use Google all by yourself, can't you?
What do your lame divisions have to do with George Santos?
Can you follow the thread?
Tru dat.
Part of the problem is that some folks merely vote against someone instead of voting for someone.
Dirty tactics used by Democrats to promote and nominate candidates like Trump in the hopes of beating a weak candidate.
The responsibility of the Democrats to nominate the candidate with a platform that is supported by the majority of the electorate. If their current candidate is supported by the majority of the electorate then it does not matter who the GOP nominates, does it?
I supported Bernie Sanders. He lost. There was not a candidate nominated that I would support for any reason so I did not cast a vote for POTUS in 2016 or 2020. It is shaping up to be the same in 2024 unless the Democrats throw Biden to the curb and finds someone I can support under the age of 50.
I have no interest in who the GOP nominates because I don't vote for Republicans. Whether they nominate Donald Trump or Donald Duck makes no difference to me.
What does interest me is the fact the political machine in this country is so inept and corrupt that Trump is a viable, acceptable and electable candidate.
Career politicians have been representing the interests of Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street.
War and open borders is an integral part of the US economy for Wall Street. It is detrimental to the lives of Main Street who have to deal with the illegal immigrants and die in the wars.
There are a substantial number of people in the US (like me) who do not understand the political game, but we can see the headlines where our reps are flying around the world, attending elite functions and throwing billions of our taxpayer dollars to a handful of wealthy men inside and outside of the US. We are not getting a return on their investment that we are aware of.
There are two (or many more) Americas. People seem to be unaware of anyone outside of their community. It is the responsibility of the politicians to represent the interests of the community that elected them. Doesn't seem to be happening for the most part.
This is a rambling comment because I wanted to reply in a timely manner and I need to fix lunch.
What are you looking for here? Do you want me to agree that the Ds use dirty tactics too? That the Ds want the Rs to nominate a weak candidate to help them win? I am one of the last persons to defend a political party. I do not believe I have ever suggested that either party is noble and honorable and have railed against political parties in general. So, again, I am at a loss as to why you even bring this up with me.
Of course it matters. The Ds and the Rs put forth their nominees and then the nation is stuck (in effect) with choosing one of them to be the PotUS. As an independent I greatly care about having someone to vote FOR rather than be stuck with two terrible candidates or making a protest vote.
If the GOP nominates Nikki Haley (for example), I would vote FOR her. I would be able to cast a vote for someone that I believe is suitable to be PotUS. If the GOP nominates Trump, I do not have that option. Same for the Ds. They could put forth someone other than Biden and give us the option to vote FOR someone suitable to be PotUS.
Again, not sure what you expect me to say here other than repeat that my position is that neither Biden nor Trump should be PotUS.
I have great interest because I will vote for a Republican (or a Democrat) based on circumstances.
Yes it is interesting in a disgusting way. But note that Trump would not be viable if the GOP electorate did not indicate through polls, etc. that they will vote for him. Back to my point about the responsibility of the electorate (and, secondarily, the responsibility of the political parties).
Indeed.
Yes
I agree, not even close. We do not have statesmen (statespersons?) but rather self-centered, opportunists serving as our 'representatives' in government.
The quality of politicians has been (generally) degrading since the 1960s.
From what I have read, the quality of politicians have not changed over centuries, if ever in any country. Men, who are determined to have power over others, are fighting to be served by others, not fighting to serve others.
That would be one of the reasons that so many people are not going to fight one another for the privilege of serving the interests of corrupt politicians.
Blaming the electorate because both parties have failed to address the needs of Main Street is ridiculous.
Trump delivered what career politicians didn't and won't because they have spent their lives lining their own pockets at the expense of Main Street.
Isn't insanity repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result?
If the electorate liked the result of a Trump presidency, why wouldn't they do the same thing again?
Why is it ridiculous to state that the electorate determines the nominee?
What, specifically, are you saying? You just stated that you do not support Trump and that you do not vote for Republicans so I cannot interpret your comment as being support for Trump yet it reads that way.
The GOP electorate apparently is going to nominate Trump regardless of the fact that he is the only PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement and that he very well could wind up a convicted felon.
To me that seems insane.
They would do the same thing again. The problem is the perception of what Trump did and what he likely will do. It is amazing to me that someone could wholly ignore the Big Lie con-job, the classified documents, and all the other negatives of Trump (e.g. intentional misrepresentation of the severity of the pandemic, narcissism, abysmal character, etc.) and vote for Trump merely for policies that any other GOP PotUS would likely support.
Compare Trump with Romney, McCain, Bush (either), Dole, Ford, Reagan, Eisenhower. (sticking with GOPs at the presidential level)
I see a profound difference between Trump and these men.
The fact that someone running for office is based on ego, power, prestige, etc. does not preclude every semblance of statesmanship and a desire to actually accomplish something of value for the nation.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am just evaluating why there is support for Trump.
I am not going to blame the people who have been screwed over by career politicians who have used them to live life on a level that few people can even imagine.
Not only that, people have lost their loved ones, their limbs and their lives in wars that were a direct result of unnecessary involvement in wars to make these corrupt representatives have that elite lifestyle.
It was only because of a naive trust in their representatives that this happened.
I am seeing people wake up from a system that never served their interests and desperately looking for someone who will.
If Trump is elected again, it is the fault of the corruption that is rampant in the US government that does not serve the interest of Main Street.
No more, no less.
The electoral process is more than simply voting. Quitting the process and then complaining about the results will not improve the results. If you don't like your options it's on you to work to find and work to promote options you can vote for.
And you have one vote to use as you please for anyone you want to support for whatever reason - most likely because their platform will reward your economic interests.
Other people will do the same.
Honestly, this is like watching a sporting event where I know the rules, the names of the players and get to listen to the crowd screaming the other side is lying, cheating, dirty sons-of-bitches. Morals/ethics do not matter as long as their team wins and they get their share of the loot.
I think I understand why Trump had support in 2016. Many people thought he was an outsider and a tough guy who would drain the swamp.
It should be clear now that Trump is far worse than any ugly creatures in the swamp. It should also be clear that there are plenty of GOP members who could effect the same basic policies as Trump did since those were all GOP policies.
There is no need for Trump and there is an extremely strong case for why he should never be allowed access to public power again (much less the presidency).
Well the way I see things, the GOP electorate has the power to nominate Nikki Haley (or someone else) and by doing so they will get a far better human being as their nominee and one who is perfectly capable of pursuing GOP core policies.
With Trump, they are guaranteed to get a vindictive, miserable human being who has demonstrated repeatedly that he will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus just to satisfy his ego.
The GOP electorate has the power to NOT nominate Trump. So if they want to reduce the rampant corruption in the US government, one thought is to NOT nominate a serial, proven, narcissist, lying con-man.
Why do you presume that??? Does 'you' / 'your' refer to me or are you speaking as 'one' / 'ones'?
I agree, but I get a sense that you are applying that to me.
It would require a level of interaction with people that I would not put myself through for any reason because it would be detrimental to my mental and physical health.
I have spent the majority of my life working with a limited number of men on farms and ranches.
Working in an office was a living Hell because of being surrounded by hundreds of people chatting for 9 hours a day. The work was okay, but I have always preferred working with livestock. Much of it was life or death for the animal if I failed to properly evaluate their health or made the wrong decision. I had access to restricted drugs from the vet when drugs at the farm store were ineffective.
About the only interaction I have with people these days is on this website.
I assume that animals are more predictable and reasonable than the men you met.
Well that’s a distorted view of humankind for sure.
I do presume that you vote your own interests. Are you stating that you do not vote your own economic interests?
I am not applying (or implying) that you do not have morals or ethics.
I may be guilty of thinking that we have interacted enough about things like cognitive bias and other wired human behavior that I do not fully explain how my understanding of human behavior makes this system of government possible in the first place.
I think in terms of improving systems that I have to use or catch my interes.
I am thinking in terms of identifying and addressing flaws in the current system so it works better than it is currently.
I am not intending to demean you or anyone else on a personal level.
I sincerely apologize.
This is one of the reasons I rarely attempt to communicate with many people.
I was raised in and still live in the Bible Belt.
At least, there are people on this website that are not religious zealots trying to put me in my place as a "good" woman.
As a military wife from 1976-1984, I lived in southern California, north of Memphis, TN, and Kaneohe, Hawaii. Every society had its charm and its drawbacks.
I am not disagreeing that the GOP electorate has other choices.
I am just stating that there is a reason they will go with the person who delivered what no one else has for them.
I am communicating on my level of understanding the reasons why people support Trump because I kind of know people who support Trump. I live in an area where a lot of people support Trump. I am not friends with any of them - this includes my husband's entire family and probably most of my family that I do not speak to.
On a personal note, I feel the same way about the people who would not support any other candidate except Hillary Clinton. I don't understand what they see in her.
This is why I am not waging into partisan politics on who is a less corrupt candidate for political office. I know I can be just as biased as any other human and have issues with identifying and addressing my own biases. My job is work on myself, not other people.
When a party finally decides on their candidate, then I may, or may not, research and discuss the pros and cons of their history and their platform.
Some men are reasonable, some are not. Some animals are predictable, and some are not.
Breeding and society can give beneficial clues on what I would likely be dealing with if I was smart enough to recognize it.
Experience is a cruel teacher, but a fool with learn from none other.
I vote based a number of factors. The interests of my friends and family are certainly a key factor but frankly the presidential vote does not have much short-term impact on my local interests. In 2024, I am voting more for what is in the best interest of our nation. So it is more long-term. In particular, I think it is critical that the USA hold Trump accountable for his Big Lie campaign. The precedent he set is horrible and that precedent as I am sure you see enables others to do similarly (not necessarily to Trump's degree of course).
Specifically though, my vote in 2024 has almost nothing to do with my own economic interests.
Then we are approaching this in a similar fashion.
The nation will survive no matter who is PotUS. But we continue on what I consider to be a dangerous path. When politicians are free to lie with the full expectation that sufficient (large enough to make a difference) numbers in the electorate will buy whatever horseshit they spew, that is the fodder for demagogues and worse.
No, Greg, you expel based on the evidence.
Let me guess, your next post will deny that their is evidence sufficient for the House to consider expulsion.
I am waiting for someone clamoring for Santos' ouster to start demanding the same for Menendez.
Looks like Menendez should be ousted too if what we are hearing is true. However, the evidence against Santos is substantially stronger ... especially since he admitted many of his misdeeds.
If you were a member of the House, would you vote to expel Santos? (I would.)
I decided to turn to Google to answer your question.
The answer turned out to be far more interesting and time consuming than I anticipated. If just a fraction of the accusations result in a thorough investigation and then deserve judgement, we really need a system to be more vigilant in vetting our political candidates.
There is a lot of information and links to further research at the link below.
Wiki gave me an easy list to review and more information about how charges are even allowed.
Is it really surprising that criminals seek and are successfully elected to the highest levels of a country's government?
One reason he's still around: the party divide in the House is very close-- Republicans need every vote they can get. Especially now.
People have different motives, but i think that's one reason some Republicans don't want to get rid of him now.
Well, now Republicans have no room to talk.
Neither do Democrats.
Let the justice system work to convict all those necessary.
Santos made a comment today that he will not seek re-election in 2024.
I saw that. Not that he has much choice at this point.
In recent times, if memory serves, that is a wealthy (and somewhat liberal) suburban district. . I seem to remember it being on the South shore of Long Island and I just googled it-- its been moved north which is a fairly wealthy area.
I haven't followed the politics of NY3 for some time, But I think when Santos is out in the next election there's a good chance they will elect a Democrat.
P.S; I recently heard an interesting story on the news. Many people feel that many Republicans nationwide have mixed feelings-- many want him out,
But some feel he should stay-- because the Party breakdown in The House is so tight.
Apparently several elected Republicans in that area want him out-- because his being there might give some local voters bad feelings about the Republican party as a whole.
I just googled it. I found this to be interesting -- if you start at, say, the 1950s and scroll down its interesting how the party of the representatives keep flipping back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in that district.
I think a number of members may not vote to expel him until he his convicted of something. Makes me wonder why they even have an ethics committee.
So, probably by the time any of this mess is settled, he won’t even be in Congress.
Hmmm....is it different if you are a Democrat?
I wouldn't know.
I'm not sure it's ever been very effective.
Senator Menendez can vouch for the effectiveness of ethics committees.
This is not about Medendez or the Senate. Last warning to stay on topic.
Seeder gave warning about 4.2.1 so off topic flag by another member was dismissed, explained by charger
And what about the Supreme Court-- Don't they have an ethics committee?
I read earlier that Rep. Michael Guest plans to file a motion to expel Santos on the Friday session. But that it wouldn't get acted on until the House is back in session after the Thanksgiving break. I think the Republicans will have a rather hard time with this decision as their margin in the House is already so thin and to remove one more... Will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
It will be since they keep trying to impeach Mayorkas on policy and Biden on suspicion of crimes keeping Santos around for short term political gain will only help Democrats in the election, but dumping him helps Democrats during voting. I'm glad I'm not in politics...
I winder if some Republicans who are uncertain about whether or not to vote for Trump may be having similar thoughts?
Last time this came up the cowards punted it to the ethics committee, the Speaker needs to man up and hold a up or down vote on this douchebag.
Ok, everyone can calm down now.
The head of the House Ethics Committee has filed a resolution to expel Santos.
[removed,]